Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DragonFly1967

  1. Thanks BF. OK, the final update on this saga. Partial Success. Not exactly the outcome I wanted, but it is what it is This ended up as a telephone hearing because of the virus, which also didn't (in my opinion) help. 14 of the 20 tickets were dismissed, and Highview (as the Claimant) were pretty much told that it was unreasonable for them to even attempt to claim on them, as they were all out of time and under POFA and the BPA CoP, the keeper could not be liable. They won (ish) on the other 6. They were claiming £80 for the PCN plus £70 "contractual costs" (debt collection) for each ticket. The Judge dismissed the £70 on each ticket as it was not itemised either on any of their signage or anywhere in the POC or their 150 page! Witness Statement. The Judge said that they were only allowed on the other 6 because all I had was "hearsay evidence" of the Staff Parking permit being displayed, as I did not include (in my bundle) a witness statement from the driver of the vehicle (who was never named). Had that been there, I would have won on the other 6 tickets as well, so, lesson learned on that one. The Judge also dismissed my arguments on planning permission and advertising consent for the pole mounted ANPR cameras and entrance signage, and the fact that "Staff" are not patrons and there are no displayed T&C's for staff parking. So that was a bit of a blow to my defence. So, that left me with £480 in PCN's that were upheld. However, the Claimant also wanted 8% interest, which the Judge reduced to 2% (£30) due to their unreasonable behaviour, and they also wanted their costs of £180 which the Judge also dismissed. They also wanted the £335 hearing fee, which when I queried it as it's based on the value of the claim, which was no longer for £3,600, was reduced to £220. Which leaves me with a Judgement against me for £730. However, the proverbial "fat lady" might be on stage, but she hasn't started signing just yet. I've got one last card to play on this hand, so, we'll see
  2. Yeah, I get that, but it's just the fact that they're so blatant as to deny that the POC mentions a contract when it quite clearly does. I will be mentioning that in my WS. Well, it'd be rude not to
  3. Reply today for the 31.14 Some pictures of signage, miraculously, not showing the "staff parking" signs. And apparently "The Contract" wasn't mentioned in their POC so I can't have that. Post #18 Yeah, my bad, the POC doesn't mention "the contract" at all I wish I could be a 'legal professional' like wot they clearly are
  4. I agree that they'll probably ignore the CPR request, or send back some 'fob off' letter, most seem to do that. But if it does get as far as court (I'm still sceptical) I'll be able to show the Judge that I (a non professional solicitor) at least, did everything correctly.
  5. As they've now received this (signed for yesterday) I can post it up. My CPR 31.14 request (tweaked slightly from the template). I think they're going to have particular problems with item 6 on my list, because it doesn't exist. I'm expecting the excuse of "but that's not mentioned in our POC" blah, blah, blah. But I don't think that that's going to help them very much if this ever gets anywhere near a Judge. CPR31.14.pdf
  6. OK Just been to our local County Court to ask their advice about a counterclaim. I probably won't risk it to be honest. It doesn't really seem fair (to me at least) but if their claim gets struck out by the Judge, I *could* then (depending on the Judge) be landed with their legal representatives costs (capped at £80) plus the hearing fee (whatever that will be). So, it will actually be cheaper (potentially at least) for me to allow this case to continue without a counterclaim, and then, once I've won this one, issue my own claim against Lowlife parking.
  7. FTMDave.. Almost, I did have one ticket from UKPC for 'not displaying a valid permit' when their own photos showed the permit clearly displayed in the windscreen. That one would have been really funny in court if they decided to press it, but eventually, they seemed to wake up from their own self induced coma and cancelled the ticket. Highview use ANPR (on the same site) and these tickets are for parking in a "patrons only" car park for longer than 4 hours, thereby breaching their so called contrick contract. As you can see, this car park is quite clearly signed as "PATRONS ONLY" But, on the GDPR (or DPA 1998 as it was at the relevant time), after I received the very first ticket from highview, for a parking event on 24/09/2016, I wrote to them to point out that the driver (not me by the way) worked at the shopping centre, the vehicle displayed a staff parking permit, and the driver thereby had supremacy of contract. The "appeal" (which it wasn't) was of course denied, and a POPLA code was issued. Appeal made to POPLA, highview withdrew for, and this is the reason they gave to POPLA "After further investigation we have decided to cancel this notice". Of course, while this was going on, I was still getting the NtK reminders, and I think at least one letter from DRP. And lately, DCBL also issuing a demand for payment, and now DCB (il)Legal are (threatening to) take me to court and the above example is one of the 20 tickets that they're claiming. There are 3 others that have been won at POPLA and 16 that arrived outside of the time from allowed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. Paragraph 9, sub paragraph 5. But DCB (il)Legal don't seem to actually care about what the law says, they're just seeing £ signs in their eyes. I've even told them that they have no case and to check the full facts of the case with their client, but apparently, they were either uninterested, or (more likely) too greedy to listen.
  8. I might pop in to the Bristol Justice Centre on Monday for a spot of advice then. Best to check I suppose
  9. Hmm, I thought that was only for claims worth >=£10k or personal injury claims over £1k and that in all other cases, costs were limited. Especially on the small claims track.
  10. No idea. They're listed as the Claimant, but I don't think for a moment that that means anything. I've got their phone number, I wonder if I should ring up for a little chat to ask them if they know what DCB (il)Legal are doing in their name. Although my gut feeling is to just leave them to it and let 'em spend as much as possible on their hopeless case, it might be a valuable lesson for them.
  11. So, worth doing either way then really. Whether I win in court, or because they just pay me and run away it'll be the best £35 I've spent in a long time And it'll serve the purpose of costing LowLife parking a few more quid into the bargain. They've already spent £185 on issuing the claim, which I think is absolutely hilarious, though I don't know if that comes from LowLife Towers or out of DCB (il)Legal's rake off from people that do roll over and pay, especially when threatened with court. Bullies, the lot of them but this time, they've picked on someone that's happy to fight
  12. Whilst I take both of your points, I can't/don't see how I could lose a counterclaim. Obviously it depends on the Judge on the day (law unto themselves and all that) but given the weight of my evidence, or rather, using their own evidence against them, I think a counter claim for an unknown sum (at the Judges discretion) might be the final slap in the face that they need. As far as I can work out, as long as I don't put any kind of monetary value on the counterclaim, all that it's going to cost me is £25 (online) to ruin their day by winning, even if it's only a token amount. Ahh no, re-read it and I have to specify a monetary value. Shame, but I reckon it'd be worth a £35 each way bet on a £500 counterclaim, just so that they have to send someone to be humiliated.
  13. brassnecked. Oh boy, are they going to be disappointed. Apart from 1, I have all of the NtK's, reminders, letters from DR-, SCS Law, DCBL and DCB Legal. Which of course, I'll be asking for again under 31.14 (because I can). And because they've mentioned "The Contract" in their POC, I want that too, along with a few other bits. And if they decide not to play ball, I may apply for an order for disclosure to the court, and I'll also be looking out for anything that may fall under 31.23 while I'm at it. They want to play hardball, that's fine with me Each of the NtK's I have is dated as to when it was received and noted as to whether or not an appal was made to Highview and/or POPLA, whereas most (as I said above) cripple their own case by just looking at the dates. I also have a copy from the DVLA of when my details were accessed via KADOE, and a spreadsheet with all of the relevant data too, just for good measure dx. I dare say that it's the usual numbers game. Issue enough claim forms and a large percentage of people will cave and be on the phone desperate to sell them their children. At some point they'll go back to the client and say "look how many people we got to pay up, aren't we brilliant!" whilst forgetting to mention anyone that squares up and fights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I do decide to issue a counterclaim, does that not mean that they can't just drop this, as my claim would still need to be heard? If that's right, it might just be the right thing to do, along with obtaining a transcript and publicising the hell out of it of course
  14. Oh I hope so brassnecked, I really do. Of the 20 tickets that they're claiming for, 4 were appealed to POPLA and those appeals were won by way of Highview withdrawing (already confirmed by POPLA by way of an SAR). And the other 16 NtK's all arrived outside of the time allowed by POFA, some of them 60+ days after the parking event, and on a few occasions, they didn't even ask the DVLA for keeper details until after the time allowed by POFA for the NtK to arrive. KADOE access after 23 days, 57 days. 58 days, 64 days. The Judge is going to crucify the poor schmuck that comes to represent them. I can see it coming. It's just a shame that they can't. Add to that if I decide to make a counterclaim for an unspecified sum at the judges discretion and it could be a very expensive day out for Highview. Perhaps I'll send DCBL to enforce if they don't pay
  15. OK then, here we go... Name of the Claimant : Highview Parking Limited Claimants Solicitors: DCB (il)Legal Date of issue – 09/09/2020 Date for AOS - 27/09/2020 by my reckoning Date to submit Defence - 11/10/2020 (so 09/10/2020 by my reckoning) What is the claim for – 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle (Registration) at Yate Shopping Centre - Main Car Park. 2. The PCN(s) were issued on 24/09/2016, 31/12/2016, 05/05/2017, 03/06/2017, 16/07/2017, 22/07/2017, 28/07/2017, 01/09/2017, 25/10/2017, 26/07/2018, 02/02/2018, 13/03/2018, 16/04/2018, 28/05/2018, 25/06/2018, 26/06/2018, 08/08/2018, 17/08/2018, 12/09/2018, 13/09/2018. 3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract). thus incurring the PCN(s). 4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £3000 being to total of the PCN(s) and damages. 2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.66 until judgement or sooner payment. 3. Costs and court fees. Grammatical errors are as typed. Legal professionals indeed.
  16. Whoa! GAME ON! A claim form has arrived in this mornings post. Once they get to the stage of actually seeing my defence, I really do hope that they're that stupid & greedy that they take this to hearing. I can feel a grand day out coming on
  17. You're preaching to the choir whitelist. This post may be of a particular interest
  18. Have a look at this and have a good read https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/search/?q=proserve&quick=1&type=forums_topic&nodes=65
  19. Indeed, but they'll claim that they're a Security Company and not a Private Parking Company. They'll find a way around it, and DVLA are complicit by not really doing any checks. If you have a goose that lays golden eggs, the last thing you want to do is ring its neck.
  20. Yes, anyone can (for a reasonable cause) on payment of a fee to the DVLA. £5 if memory serves. What they can't do is ignore the bylaws. They'll try it on of course (read any VCS - No Stopping thread (different singer, same song)) in the hopes that someone will pay them. But a nice reply to them quoting the bylaws and the relevant acts of parliament *should* at least let them know that you're not going to have the wool pulled over your eyes.
  21. Not exactly. Anyone can take anyone else to court. Winning at court when they do on the other hand The problem that these clowns are going to have is that Felixstowe, like pretty much every other docks, has it's own bylaws. whilst you certainly could be given a "penalty charge" which would be enforceable in Magistrates Court, some cowboy outfit sending off an invoice for £250 and hoping that you roll over and pay up without asking too many questions, is an entirely different matter. I've not read these, but have a good old read. I dare say that parking on the dockyard is covered in there somewhere. Felixstowe Docks - General_Bye_Laws.pdf
  22. Oh well, too late now. They probably won't notice anyway, I don't think that they're that intelligent.
  23. For reference, here are the Bylaws for Bristol Airport. Parking is covered at section 6 on page 11. Oddly, they don't mention sub contractors that enforce parking restrictions.... Can't think why Bristol Airport Byelaws 11062018.pdf
  24. Annnnd, an update. The saga continues. I've had a letter from DCB Legal this morning... Dear Sir We write to you in response to your recent correspondence. You state that 16 out of 20 Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) are flawed and that our Client is aware of this. We have consulted with our Client and they are unaware of what you are referring to. Please clarify the reasons you dispute the debt so that this can be addressed. And my reply, which is just about to go in the post... Dear DCB Legal. Thank you for your letter dated 31st July. And here I was labouring under the assumption that you are competent, qualified, professional solicitors. Your client may have an excuse, they’re just parking snakes, but as so-called solicitors, you should know better. On that note, I did not say that you’re clients were aware that 16 (now actually 18 after further research on my part) were fatally flawed. I’d be pleasantly surprised if your clients were even aware of which way was up. What I actually said was… “Of the 20 Highview references mentioned above, should you wish to bring a claim, as you’re the legal experts (allegedly) you should already be aware that 16 of them are fatally flawed.” I’m not doing your work for you beyond suggesting that you read and inwardly digest the full contents of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Particularly Schedule 4. If you can’t work it out for yourselves and believe that you have a case, please do proceed to issue a claim. I’m looking forward to it already. Unless you work it out, that’s the only way that you’re going to see my hand. If you’ve not got the guts to issue a claim, please stop writing to me (apart from answering my SAR (already sent)) as I’m getting a little fed up of wasting my time. Clearly unlike yourselves, I have far better things to be getting on with. Just in case it may have escaped your attention, or intellect, I am not someone that you can bully, threaten or cajole in to paying either yourselves or your client. The only way that either of you are getting even a penny out of me is to take me to court and win. Good luck with that. Signed, Keeper.
  25. That's just Debt Recovery Plus in fancy dress. It's a begging letter and can be safely ignored. Though don't ignore anything headed "Letter Before Claim/Action"
  • Create New...